EVE Search - Enough is Enough: Nerf Minmatar

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Enough is Enough: Nerf Minmatar

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Naomi Knight Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 19	Posted - 2011.11.03 23:20:00 - [241] - Quote Roosterton wrote: Nanopests are AC ships. So fine, remove the HAM ships, also remove the nanopest. The list is still pretty even. As for the Rook/Falcon, they're decent alternatives to Scorps if more mobility is needed. Maybe Scorps are more commonly used because flying them requires nothing but sitting there and activating jammers, but that doesn't nullify the viability of other ECM ships. not rly we use many tempests with nano and 1400mm arty fitted rook/falcon only worth using in smaller gangs,they die too easily vs fleets , scorp has the range +tank for large fights
Nimrod Nemesis Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 40	Posted - 2011.11.03 23:24:00 - [242] - Quote Roosterton wrote: Nanopests are AC ships. So fine, remove the HAM ships, also remove the nanopest. The list is still pretty even. At the MOST generous, it's 10 to 9. Quote: 1400mm Maelstrom 1400mm Tempest 720mm Nano Hurricane Arty Muninn Scimitar Rapier Huginn Hound Sabre Broadsword (10) Vs Caldari HML Drake 100MN AB Tengu Falcon Rook Basilisk Cerberus (lol) Manticore Scorpion (9) more like (6) I would have to argue the Rook/Falcon don't belong in fleets. I would also argue the cerb is a truly LAUGHABLE fleet hac and I really can't imagine comparing it to the muninn. So that puts us, more realistically, at 10 to 6. Then you might as well consider the scimi is in most cases superior to the basi and the manticore is certainly not one of the better bombers... ** this is depressing. Roosterton wrote:** As for the Rook/Falcon, they're decent alternatives to Scorps if more mobility is needed. Maybe Scorps are more commonly used because flying them requires nothing but sitting there and activating jammers, but that doesn't nullify the viability of other ECM ships. We're still talking about fleets, yes?
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 79	Posted - 2011.11.03 23:34:00 - [243] - Quote Nimrod Nemesis wrote: We're still talking about fleets, yes? Depends on how you define "fleet" because past a certain point, the 1400mm Pest and Muninn should be falling off that list as well. And who uses Sabres for fleets? More expensive for capabilities you don't need for a fleet dictor. And that should be a 10MN Tengu.
Nimrod Nemesis Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 40	Posted - 2011.11.03 23:44:00 - [244] - Quote Mfume Apocal wrote: Depends on how you define "fleet" because past a certain point, the 1400mm Pest and Muninn should be falling off that list as well. And who uses Sabres for fleets? More expensive for capabilities you don't need for a fleet dictor. And that should be a 10MN Tengu. How do you define fleet? And don't you mean at a certain point everything BUT 1400mm X falls off the list? (I guess it depends on which side has them) Anyhow, valid point about the sabre. Tengu should just be tengu. Quote: 1400mm Maelstrom 1400mm Tempest 720mm Nano Hurricane Arty Muninn Scimitar Rapier Huginn Hound Broadsword (9) Vs HML Drake HML Tengu Basilisk Manticore Scorpion (5) Edited for more realism.
Zarnak Wulf Amok. Goonswarm Federation 57	Posted - 2011.11.03 23:44:00 - [245] - Quote When the Deimos can approach vagabond speeds with the shortest range weapon system in the game I'll get excited about the hybrid buff.
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 79	Posted - 2011.11.04 00:16:00 - [246] - Quote Nimrod Nemesis wrote: How do you define fleet? More than 50 or so. At that level, you're looking at about 30-35 damage dealers. If those damage dealers are Pulse BS, they have enough alpha to pink-mist anything will less than 100K EHP, practically speaking and will do it at a pretty frightening rate. So the 1400mm Tempest, in spite of it's speed, sig and utility advantage, loses out to the Maelstrom as a fleet BS simply because of tank. Quote: And don't you mean at a certain point everything BUT 1400mm X falls off the list? (I guess it depends on which side has them) The Huginn serves a pretty crucial role and can be fairly survivable in big fights if you're willing to invest the SP and isk into a off-grid booster and faction webs. Scimitar works as well. As for stuff that I wouldn't put on the list, I personally don't think the Broadsword is too different from the Onyx tbh. Properly fit, both have similar enough stats I'm pretty hesitant to put either one over the other. Anything past small gangs (10 or 11 guys), the Rapier is just a bad Huginn. Hounds are pretty much go-to bombers simply because of the explosive damage bonus; if armor tanks had an EM weakness, people would be singing the Purifier's praises instead. Of course, all this changes in small(er) fights.
Ruah Piskonit PIE Inc. 40	Posted - 2011.11.04 01:02:00 - [247] - Quote Zarnak Wulf wrote: When the Deimos can approach vagabond speeds with the shortest range weapon system in the game I'll get excited about the hybrid buff. I like. . .a bit extreme but like. I have always argued that Gallente should have the best agility (get up to speed fastest - MWD) and the minmatar should remain the fastest top-speed but not get up to speed as fast. And i was glad to see CCP agrees. Overall Liang, I don't think ACs should be balanced to Lazers. I feel that ACs should do the least DPS that will not-quite match Pulse damage at AC optimal. But if the Minmatar ship decides to go with a high-damage load-out - it can choose to load missiles in its extra high points (trading neuts), and use its drones (mobility). The drones especially take away from the mobility of the ship - but - when taken as a whole package - will just do less damage then a pure pulse ship. In exchange - the minmatar ship can elect to do less damage by removing the missiles and not using the drones - but gain major battlefield mobility and options instead. That is something Mini ships have not lost - they still remain highly versatile in fittings and options. Hybrids and Lasers are both one trick ponies and impose very server load-outs and tactical considerations on the ship/pilot. Eagle is the perfect example of this kind of focused design that symbolizes Amarr and Caldari ship design. So if anyone argues to bring the weapon systems in line also have to propose to completely change the other three races to give them that degree of malleability. If not, then Mini ships and their weapon systems have to be balanced back to being the lowest damaging, highest mobility, lowest tech, highest adaptation race. The jack of all trades class of ships has to trade firepower, tank, and strategic focus for combat options, maneuverability, and a wide range of weapon systems employed. If not, then it will remain imba because it keep all the advantages and loses non of its disadvantages - with the exception of mass battleship fleet fights. Now, does anyone want to take this kind of ship out to a fleet? Well, if its a skirmish fleet, yes. Which is why gallente and minmatar are the two skirmish style races (and conveniently allied). But not in a 'conventional fleet' where Amarr and Caldari with their more focused ships would dominate. The desire to balance ACs to Pulse and Blasters ignores the core design of the ships and the advantages/disadvantages that those weapon systems have. But lasers are supposed to be the best turret platform. So if we nurf lazers, then there also needs to be a major re-evaluation of its cap use and fittings - because an Amarr ship sacrifices a lot to get that 'face melting' dps. Remember, Amarr ships have few mids, generally slow due to the 'gank and tank' design, almost no Amarr ship is an exception to this except perhaps the Arbitrator class. As I see it - the balance has been borked. And the ones to suffer have not been so much Amarr as Gallente. Minmatar ships do everything Gallente ships do, with easier fittings, better ranges, more combat options, and faster speeds. And don't get people started on drones. . . Also in the TD changes were before the TE changes - yes. But that is where the crying started. There is no way that Minmatar should get a low-slot mod that acts as a second damage mod - not even you can argue that that is balanced.
Grog Barrel Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2011.11.04 01:15:00 - [248] - Quote Hannibal Ord wrote: Over time Amarr ships and lasers were improved - the laser now being the best weapon system in the game as it stands, mounted on often perfect platforms - yes it is even better than projectiles. Since feeding the trolls is now a trend, i will go with it too. You must be ******* kidding right? The only thing that makes amarrr still "flyable" is the ammunition: Scorch, not the terribad weapon system. Take scorch off amarr technology and amarr ships are nothing but flying dildos and that's a fact. For multifrequency range just switch to a completely new race and win.
Bomberlocks CTRL-Q 30	Posted - 2011.11.04 01:23:00 - [249] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: [quote=JitaJane].....the Typhoon works fine with projectiles. Wut?
Zarnak Wulf Amok. Goonswarm Federation 58	Posted - 2011.11.04 01:43:00 - [250] - Quote Ruah Piskonit hits the nail on the head and alot more eloquently then I ever could. The skulls, the bones..... He gives it all such a glow. I don't know if it's art- but I like it!

Roosterton Eternal Frontier 123	Posted - 2011.11.04 03:55:00 - [251] - Quote Nimrod Nemesis wrote: I would have to argue the Rook/Falcon don't belong in fleets. I would also argue the cerb is a truly LAUGHABLE fleet hac and I really can't imagine comparing it to the muninn. So that puts us, more realistically, at 10 to 6. Then you might as well consider the scimi is in most cases superior to the basi and the manticore is certainly not one of the better bombers... **** this is depressing.? Cerb has its niche in comparison to the Muninn - namely, perfect damage projection far, far past 100km. Of course, it will take a while for your missiles to hit out that far, but it can still make very viable support. As for the Rook and Falcon, I would argue that they're still very useful in a fleet of around 50 people, where things like the added mobility of them will give them a role above the scorp. Once you start getting into the hundreds of people, I would agree that their usefulness begins to diminish... But so does the usefulness of Huginns/Rapiers. Honestly, the Scimi is only superior to the basilisk in a perfect world where nothing hits you, nothing neuts you, and nothing tries to jam you. Even then, there are cases where the basi is better. (being able to run 5 large shield transporters as opposed to 4 comes to mind) I actually prefer the Manti to the Hound, due to kinetic being a somewhat more flexible damage type than explosive, and four mids allows you to do some more interesting stuff with ewar. But I suppose that comes down to personal taste.
Ruah Piskonit PIE Inc. 41	Posted - 2011.11.04 04:46:00 - [252] - Quote Zarnak Wulf wrote: Ruah Piskonit hits the nail on the head and alot more eloquently then I ever could. The skulls, the bones..... He gives it all such a glow. I don't know if it's art- but I like it! thanks man
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 79	Posted - 2011.11.04 05:56:00 - [253] - Quote Ruah Piskonit wrote: Also in the TD changes were before the TE changes - yes. But that is where the crying started. There is no way that Minmatar should get a low-slot mod that acts as a second damage mod - not even you can argue that that is balanced. 1. Amarr get a mid-slot mod that acts a second damage mod. 2. Even with the Amarr ship having 0 TCs and a Minmatar ship having 2 TEs, lasers still project damage better. Quote: Finally - ship lists of best and worst and this and that are not arguments. . . WTB 700 DPS at 60km Tempest.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux 43	Posted - 2011.11.04 06:45:00 - [254] - Quote Ruah Piskonit wrote: Overall Liang, I don't think ACs should be balanced to Lazers. I feel that ACs should do the least DPS that will not-quite match Pulse damage at AC optimal. ... But lasers are supposed to be the best turret platform. Please justify why you believe this. So far, you've just told me the way that it "should be" with absolutely no justification. I'll go out on a limb here and say you are utterly and completely wrong - and claiming that lasers should be the best weapon platform is nothing short of ludicrous. Quote: Also in the TD changes were before the TE changes - yes. But that is where the crying started. There is no way that Minmatar should get a low-slot mod that acts as a second damage mod - not even you can argue that that is balanced. TEs work the same for everyone. Please stop pretending like they don't. -Liang
Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 45	Posted - 2011.11.04 07:47:00 - [255] - Quote Yay! A wild Liang appears!
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts 60	Posted - 2011.11.04 09:51:00 - [256] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: Ruah Piskonit wrote: Overall Liang, I don't think ACs should be balanced to Lazers. I feel that ACs should do the least DPS that will not-quite match Pulse damage at AC optimal. ... But lasers are supposed to be the best turret platform. Please justify why you believe this. So far, you've just told me the way that it "should be" with absolutely no justification. I'll go out on a limb here and say you are utterly and completely wrong - and claiming that lasers should be the best weapon platform is nothing short of ludicrous. Quote: Also in the TD changes were before the TE changes - yes. But that is where the crying started. There is no way that Minmatar should get a low-slot mod that acts as a second damage mod - not even you can argue that that is balanced. TEs work the same for everyone. Please stop pretending like they don't. -Liang Come off it, that's a ridiculous statement. The benefit that a ship gains from a TE is dependent on the nature of the ship, its weapons and fittings and its slot layout. Saying that TEs work the same for everyone is like giving a knife and fork to a man with no arms and saying "Just use them the way that I do".
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 79	Posted - 2011.11.04 09:55:00 - [257] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: Come off it, that's a ridiculous statement. The benefit that a ship gains from a TE is dependent on the nature of the ship, its weapons and fittings and its slot layout. Saying that TEs work the same for everyone is like giving a knife and fork to a man with no arms and saying "Just use them the way that I do". Are you saying the TE doesn't help pulse with damage projection?
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts 60	Posted - 2011.11.04 10:04:00 - [258] - Quote Mfume Apocal wrote: Gypsio III wrote: Come off it, that's a ridiculous statement. The benefit that a ship gains from a TE is dependent on the nature of the ship, its weapons and fittings and its slot layout. Saying that TEs work the same for everyone is like giving a knife and fork to a man with no arms and saying "Just use them the way that I do". Are you saying the TE doesn't help pulse with damage projection? I'm saying that it helps different ships to different extents. Are you saying that a blasterboat gets the same benefit from a TE as a AC/pulse ship, and that all these ships have the same ability to fit the same number of TEs? And don't say "yes they all get 30% falloff from the first TE" That's just a number in EFT, it's the usefulness of the ship in game that is important.
Onictus Legendary Knights Vorpal's Edge 17	Posted - 2011.11.04 10:35:00 - [259] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: TEs work the same for everyone. Please stop pretending like they don't. -Liang TE's favor AC's by virtue of increasing falloff considerably....they have a bigger effect on optimal+ falloff than any other turret system. None of the other turrets have falloffs 130% of their optimal, by pushing falloff you reduce the drop in the curve and overall dps increases over x distance. So a TE on a 800mm AC increases falloff what 7km or so? When you stack three of them you get about 25-30% (if memory serves) real range bonus with short range ammo (which I must say is going to rock when Hail gets buffed) Opposed to the other systems that are primarily optimal, three TE's on a Neutron blaster cannon with faction AM pushes optimal + fall off from 19km (ish) to 28km where the comparable ACs go from 22km to 48km optimal + falloff with short range faction ammo. The amusing part is that the above example, blaster optimal is something like 11km and ACs are a whopping 3,500 or so with my my imperfect skills. Not exactly game breaking in my opinion. Hulls are more the issue than the turrets themselves.
Hannibal Ord Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group 43	Posted - 2011.11.04 10:56:00 - [260] - Quote Grog Barrel wrote: Hannibal Ord wrote: Over time Amarr ships and lasers were improved - the laser now being the best weapon system in the game as it stands, mounted on often perfect platforms - yes it is even better than projectiles. Since feeding the trolls is now a trend, i will go with it too. You must be ***** kidding right? The only thing that makes amarrr still "flyable" is the ammunition: Scorch, not the terribad weapon system. Take scorch off amarr technology and amarr ships are nothing but flying dildos and that's a fact. For multifrequency range just switch to a completely new race and win. High Optimal range equals to perfect damage onto a target baring issues with tracking. Your argument that remove Scorch and Amarr is ** can be mirrored by removing Barrage from Minmatar and they are equally crap, because Barrage allows the ships to kite and fire at range, with few exceptions. Infact, a great deal of Hybrid ships are also only effective when they load Null. The long range ammo makes or breaks the weapon systems of all races when concerning short range guns. The lasers ability to switch different Crystals on the fly is a super awesome ability and if you have a clue about fitting ships and good skills, the cap requirements for them doesn't really matter that much. Not saying that some Amarr ships need work, like the Omen for example, but the weapon is pretty darn good and balanced against Projectiles.

Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 81	Posted - 2011.11.04 12:00:00 - [261] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: I'm saying that it helps different ships to different extents. OK. Quote: Are you saying that a blasterboat gets the same benefit from a TE as a AC/pulse ship Hell no. Which is part of the reason blasters specifically and Gallente in general are hard-mode EVE. Quote: ...and that all these ships have the same ability to fit the same number of TEs? If shield tanked, most can fit the traditional 2+2 or 3+1. Higher damage is supposed to be the advantage of shield tanking, so I see nothing wrong with this. For ships locked into armor-tanking by virtue of bonuses, they (typically) have mids for TCs, which do the same thing as TEs. See: Hellcat Abaddon. Quote: And don't say "yes they all get 30% falloff from the first TE" That's just a number in EFT, it's the usefulness of the ship in game that is important. I agree. Pulse BS still rule the day in fleet fights, shield tanked Zealots can ruin your day out to 50km (thanks to TEs!) and even a plated Harb with no TE/TCs still projects damage better over relevant solo/small gang ranges than a Hurricane.
Bomberlocks CTRL-Q 31	Posted - 2011.11.04 12:21:00 - [262] - Quote Mfume Apocal wrote: Gypsio III wrote: I'm saying that it helps different ships to different extents. OK. Quote: Are you saying that a blasterboat gets the same benefit from a TE as a AC/pulse ship Hell no. Which is part of the reason blasters specifically and Gallente in general are hard-mode EVE. Quote: ...and that all these ships have the same ability to fit the same number of TEs? If shield tanked, most can fit the traditional 2+2 or 3+1. Higher damage is supposed to be the advantage of shield tanking, so I see nothing wrong with this. For ships locked into armor-tanking by virtue of bonuses, they (typically) have mids for TCs, which do the same thing as TEs. See: Hellcat Abaddon. Quote: And don't say "yes they all get 30% falloff from the first TE" That's just a number in EFT, it's the usefulness of the ship in game that is important. I agree. Pulse BS still rule the day in fleet fights, shield tanked Zealots can ruin your day out to 50km (thanks to TEs!) and even a plated Harb with no TE/TCs still projects damage better over relevant solo/small gang ranges than a Hurricane. Wouldn't a change to rig mechanics help Gallente? Give the Hybrid burst aerator give higher bonus than the equivalent projectile and laser rigs?
Onictus Legendary Knights Vorpal's Edge 17	Posted - 2011.11.04 12:29:00 - [263] - Quote Bomberlocks wrote: I agree. Pulse BS still rule the day in fleet fights, shield tanked Zealots can ruin your day out to 50km (thanks to TEs!) and even a plated Harb with no TE/TCs still projects damage better over relevant solo/small gang ranges than a Hurricane. Wouldn't a change to rig mechanics help Gallente? Give the Hybrid burst aerator give higher bonus than the equivalent projectile and laser rigs?[/quote] More like get rid of the speed penalty on active armor armor rigs
Sable Schroedinger Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction 0	Posted - 2011.11.04 12:33:00 - [264] - Quote IMO 2 things were over buffed. Pulse tracking and TE fall off bonus. For now, I have no problem with the damage level of projectiles, even the alpha on arties, though in time that opinion might change. However, at this time, the issue is too clouded by the above over buffs. Lasers are listed as medium to long range weapons, however with the current tracking on Pulse there is no meaningful concept of getting under their tracking, therefore they become short, medium and long range weapons. Projectiles are short to medium weapons, however with the boost to TEs they are short medium and long range weapons. Blasters are short range weapons, rails are long range weapons.Since those divides have not been blurred (and nor should they be), the obvious imbalance we see is created. Now I agree that pulse needed a tracking boost as it was too easy to get under their tracking. I also agree that TEs needed to effect falloff as TDs were changed to effect fall off. But in both cases, I think it went too far and removed flavour from the weapons systems by making them omni useful. Other things need looking at, some need buffing and some need rolling back - others (mentioning no active tanks) need reworking completely, but the above issue just need their buffs rolling back a little (doesn't need to be huge). The reason it can't be a buff everything else to the same level answer, is a. as the gallente have found recently a buff to other things is often a nerf to another and because arms races never end (boosting the damage to everything just results in calls for more HPs again and the cycle begins anew).
Naomi Knight Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 19	Posted - 2011.11.04 16:41:00 - [265] - Quote what about a role bonus ? all matar fanboys say those ships arent tanky , so lets make it more apparent , add a "bonus" for all matar ships: -30% shield,armor,hull hp even for modules
Liang Nuren Perkone Caldari State 46	Posted - 2011.11.04 18:07:00 - [266] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: Mfume Apocal wrote: Gypsio III wrote: Come off it, that's a ridiculous statement. The benefit that a ship gains from a TE is dependent on the nature of the ship, its weapons and fittings and its slot layout. Saying that TEs work the same for everyone is like giving a knife and fork to a man with no arms and saying "Just use them the way that I do". Are you saying the TE doesn't help pulse with damage projection? I'm saying that it helps different ships to different extents. Are you saying that a blasterboat gets the same benefit from a TE as a AC/pulse ship, and that all these ships have the same ability to fit the same number of TEs? And don't say "yes they all get 30% falloff from the first TE" That's just a number in EFT, it's the usefulness of the ship in game that is important. Comments: - Optimal is a much stronger mechanic than falloff, so I would say that lasers get a similar benefit. - Blasters are useless anyway and therefore not useful to bring into this conversation. The comment about the man with no arms is appropriate, but not very useful. - I make heavy use of TEs on all turret based ships. TEs would be simply useless most of the time without the falloff bonus. -Liang
Liang Nuren Perkone Caldari State 46	Posted - 2011.11.04 18:15:00 - [267] - Quote Onictus wrote: TE's favor AC's by virtue of increasing falloff considerably....they have a bigger effect on optimal+ falloff than any other turret system. Amusingly, optimal + falloff is a much less interesting mechanic than optimal + 0 falloff or optimal + falloff/2. You have to remember that just because you can deal damage doesn't make it good damage. Quote: None of the other turrets have falloffs 130% of their optimal, by pushing falloff you reduce the drop in the curve and overall dps increases over x distance. Please stop equating falloff with optimal. They are not at all the same. One of them is quite dramatically inferior. -Liang
Onictus Legendary Knights Vorpal's Edge 17	Posted - 2011.11.04 18:26:00 - [268] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: Onictus wrote: TE's favor AC's by virtue of increasing falloff considerably....they have a bigger effect on optimal+ falloff than any other turret system. Amusingly, optimal + falloff is a much less interesting mechanic than optimal + 0 falloff or optimal + falloff/2. You have to remember that just because you can deal damage doesn't make it good damage. Quote: None of the other turrets have falloffs 130% of their optimal, by pushing falloff you reduce the drop in the curve and overall dps increases over x distance. Please stop equating falloff with optimal. They are not at all the same. One of them is quite dramatically inferior. -Liang Agreed, optimal is more valuable. But no one is screaming about nerfing pulse lasers despite their very long optimals.... The optimal on ACs is shorter than blasters, under 2000 with 425s? Compared to 2300 with neutrons. While uninteresting you simply can't say damage in falloff is ineffective. You just said yourself that blasters are useless, yet they have a LONGER optimal than ACs.....and I doubt you will hear many cries about under powered autocannons in fall off.
cyka776 7	Posted - 2011.11.04 18:30:00 - [269] - Quote they should have just nerfed scorch and lasers a while back instead of buffing projectiles
Liang Nuren Perkone Caldari State 46	Posted - 2011.11.04 19:40:00 - [270] - Quote Onictus wrote: Agreed, optimal is more valuable. But no one is screaming about nerfing pulse lasers despite their very long optimals.... The optimal on ACs is shorter than blasters, under 2000 with 425s? Compared to 2300 with neutrons. While uninteresting you simply can't say damage in falloff is ineffective. You just said yourself that blasters are useless, yet they have a LONGER optimal than ACs.....and I doubt you will hear many cries about under powered autocannons in fall off. Comments: - Actually, several people in this thread have stated their desire to nerf both projectiles and lasers. Or just projectiles (which would lead to lasers). - I didn't say that all damage in falloff is ineffective, so please stop putting words in my mouth. I said that optimal + falloff is not as interesting as optimal and optimal + falloff/2. If you're at optimal + falloff your damage isn't anything to write home about. - Again, blasters have deeper problems than can be solved by TEs. It is ***** useless to continue bringing them up. Either CCP will boost blasters to the levels of Lasers and Projectiles or they will continue to be useless. If you want to talk about the balance of TEs you should restrict yourself to functional weapons systems. cyka776 wrote:** they should have just nerfed scorch and lasers a while back instead of buffing projectiles Yes, this was the right answer. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) that time has long since passed and it is no longer the right answer. CCP must now buff hybrids, which is the direction they're going. After that, they'll need to look at Cruise. -Liang



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.